"asunthatneversets" recently quoted Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche from (I'm assuming) the Second book in the "As it is" series thusly:

The relationship between dharmadhatu, dharmakaya and dharmadhatu wisdom is like the relationship between a place, a person and the person's mind. If there is no place, there is no environment for the person to exist in; and there is no person unless that person also has a mind dwelling in the body. In the same way, the main field or realm called dharmadhatu has the nature of dharmakaya. Dharmakaya has the quality of dharmadhatu wisdom, which is like the mind aspect."

I happened to read this right after reading a passage from Longechenpa's commentary on the Precious Treasury of the Basic Space of Phenomeon, (Richard Baron, LCN's translation) where Longchenpa is quoting the "Great Garuda" and says: (pp 50 of the 2001 Padma Publishing text)

Just as a flower has no place to grow in the sky, having no support, the mind is not localized in the body, so there is no possible support for habitual patterns

1) Is this apparent contradiction just a translation issue - one of the hazzards of not understanding Tibetan while still trying to understand the Great Perfection teachings based primarily on texts that have been rendered in English, a language that is, by all accounts, simply not a good interface w/ Tibetan?2) If it's not a translation issue, then why the contradiction?

So, to echo the question posed (for the first time ever) by the Pixies: "Where *is* my mind?"

"Certain late rNying ma pa tantras even go further in localizing the sems and ye shes in the body. Ye shes resides in the heart whereas sems is in the lung."("The Primordial Basis as Having a Physical Presentation" in The Great Perfection by S.G. Karmay, p 185ff)

1Myriad dharmas are only mind. Mind is unobtainable. What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,the six paramitas and myriad meansare complete within that essence.

CapNCrunch wrote:"asunthatneversets" recently quoted Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche from (I'm assuming) the Second book in the "As it is" series thusly:

The relationship between dharmadhatu, dharmakaya and dharmadhatu wisdom is like the relationship between a place, a person and the person's mind. If there is no place, there is no environment for the person to exist in; and there is no person unless that person also has a mind dwelling in the body. In the same way, the main field or realm called dharmadhatu has the nature of dharmakaya. Dharmakaya has the quality of dharmadhatu wisdom, which is like the mind aspect."

I happened to read this right after reading a passage from Longechenpa's commentary on the Precious Treasury of the Basic Space of Phenomeon, (Richard Baron, LCN's translation) where Longchenpa is quoting the "Great Garuda" and says: (pp 50 of the 2001 Padma Publishing text)

Just as a flower has no place to grow in the sky, having no support, the mind is not localized in the body, so there is no possible support for habitual patterns

1) Is this apparent contradiction just a translation issue - one of the hazzards of not understanding Tibetan while still trying to understand the Great Perfection teachings based primarily on texts that have been rendered in English, a language that is, by all accounts, simply not a good interface w/ Tibetan?2) If it's not a translation issue, then why the contradiction?

So, to echo the question posed (for the first time ever) by the Pixies: "Where *is* my mind?"

It can also depend on the context of the statement, and to whom it's being directed. There's obviously lots of ways the mind is spoken of, you get statements like; the mind resides in the heart, everything is mind(including what's perceived to be a body/world), there is no mind, the mind is localized, its non-local and non-established, etc... I'd say the safest bet is just to know that mind/body/universe are all intermittent states, then you don't get caught on being stuck on a certain notion, and each statement is allowed to be appropriate in it's own right, because they're all correct in their appropriate contexts.

And then you also need to know when mind is being spoken of as the thought-based-mind, and mind as in the awareness, consciousness type "mind" and then the ultimate nature of mind which is clarity and emptiness. There can be alot to discriminate between.

And "where is my mind" is also a common tool the historical Buddha and countless teachers since traditionally implement. It can be a useful and effective exercise. Usually the thought-based mind is the one in question there. But it can be used in the other ways mind is spoken of too. They'll all give the same result more or less.

Could it not be that mind does not have a place to stay, because its very base would be emptiness?

So would the mind realy abide inside the body together with its memory?

Mutsog MarroKY

That's the difference between thought-based "mind" and "mind" as in the primordial "enlightened nucleus" or whatever label it's given in the heart. There's pretty in depth descriptions of how mind resides in the heart and actually manifests out into(as) the "objective sphere" through the eyes.

Could it not be that mind does not have a place to stay, because its very base would be emptiness?So would the mind realy abide inside the body together with its memory?

I've wondered along these lines too - but as ASTNS said, there are many different contexts when it comes to mind.

The mind, the nature of mind and it's dynamic energy are all dependently originated, so none have any base in the ultimate sense - which is why I was surprised by the quote attributed to Tulku Urgyen, b/c he is almost certainly talking of the nature of mind (not unusual for him ), and I thought the same could be said by the quote from the Great Garuda attributed to Longchenpa.

But, we have these other sources placing the mind in the heart region - including the nature of mind - the specifics of which aren't appropriate to chat about. So - yeah, how can something (we're talking about the ultimate sense here b/c we're talking about yeshe, nature of mind, rigpa etc) that has no base have a physical location?

And what of those nyam like experiences where the "mind" can be clearly seen to be located (at least for a time) outside of the body? Maybe in the case of nyams it is subtle prana that can seem to change the location of mind, or perception.

Sigh. I really, *really* wish I could read Tibetan as well as English.

There is no question that the " mind" is intimately related with brain function

Right - but the relation flows one way - namely: the function of the brain is dependent on the mind, and the mind is dependent on the nature of mind.

The nature of mind is said to be dependently originated b/c if there is no mind, there is no nature of mind - but there is no cause (that I know of) for the nature of mind - the fact that it is dependent originated comes down to our dualistic vision and the fact that we can't even talk about nature of mind without first talking about the mind - ergo...

This is how I understand it - but then, I could easily be smoking jimson weed.

Could it not be that mind does not have a place to stay, because its very base would be emptiness?

So would the mind realy abide inside the body together with its memory?

Mutsog MarroKY

That's the difference between thought-based "mind" and "mind" as in the primordial "enlightened nucleus" or whatever label it's given in the heart. There's pretty in depth descriptions of how mind resides in the heart and actually manifests out into(as) the "objective sphere" through the eyes.

Tashi delek,

Thanks for your reply.

In how far, would be that inside - outside experience over the medium "eyes" , be illusion ?Then, in how far could be that experience be valued or be of use ?

Mutsog MarroKY

THOUGH A MAN BE LEARNEDIF HE DOES NOT APPLY HIS KNOWLEDGEHE RESEMBLES THE BLIND MANWHO WITH A LAMP IN THE HAND CANNOT SEE THE ROAD

This exact question is answered by Tsele Natsok Rangdrol in the book Empowerment.

Look at the unfathomable spinelessness of man: all the means he's been given to stay alert he uses, in the end, to ornament his sleep. – Rene Daumalthe modern mind has become so limited and single-visioned that it has lost touch with normal perception - John Michell

Look at the unfathomable spinelessness of man: all the means he's been given to stay alert he uses, in the end, to ornament his sleep. – Rene Daumalthe modern mind has become so limited and single-visioned that it has lost touch with normal perception - John Michell

Could it not be that mind does not have a place to stay, because its very base would be emptiness?

So would the mind realy abide inside the body together with its memory?

Mutsog MarroKY

That's the difference between thought-based "mind" and "mind" as in the primordial "enlightened nucleus" or whatever label it's given in the heart. There's pretty in depth descriptions of how mind resides in the heart and actually manifests out into(as) the "objective sphere" through the eyes.

Tashi delek,

Thanks for your reply.

In how far, would be that inside - outside experience over the medium "eyes" , be illusion ?Then, in how far could be that experience be valued or be of use ?

You have to see the whole story within context. You cannot compare passage and passage or sentence with sentence.

It really depends on the point the teacher wants to hit, sometimes he use relative term sometimes he use ultimate term expressed in relative term.

For example the base of consciousness (alaya), is proposed as it is something real. It is the source of everything. It sounds as if it can be found.

Another example if you read atiyoga text, "the supreme source", it sound as if there is a god, which act as the source of something. However, at the latter part everythIng is rejected.

So you need to see thing in the big context.

Madyamika prasingka is the ultimate view. Use that background to read Mahamudra or Dzoghchen, it will strengthen your understanding deeper without any contradiction.

I am not here nor there.I am not right nor wrong.I do not exist neither non-exist.I am not I nor non-I.I am not in samsara nor nirvana.To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

That is no problem actually. If for them, that view make sense to them, then they use that basis to learn dzochgen or Mahamudra. Or if they are chitamatra, then they use that view to learn Dzoghchen or Mahamudra.

However, I just wonder how far can that person go without contradiction if they have the view of chitamatra and dzochgen or Mahamudra.

Or how far can they go if they have prasangika svatantrika.

May be for them everything can go smoothly, in the sense everything click nicely. In this case, that is good for them.

If not, may be dzochgen or Mahamudra bring them to the next level.

I am not here nor there.I am not right nor wrong.I do not exist neither non-exist.I am not I nor non-I.I am not in samsara nor nirvana.To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

The relationship between dharmadhatu, dharmakaya and dharmadhatu wisdom is like the relationship between a place, a person and the person's mind.

The target of the passage is to explain the relationship between dharmadhatu, dharmakaya, and dharmadhatu wisdom. This relationship is explained with the example of the way ordinary people think, which is this one:

If there is no place, there is no environment for the person to exist in; and there is no person unless that person also has a mind dwelling in the body.

Because we are ignorant and having this idea, place, the human live in it, and the mind of human, it serves as the perfect way to use this relationship to explain dharmadatu, dharmakaya, and dharmadatu wisdom.

This passage is just used to explain the relationship.

So, we cannot use the example in explaining this relationship as if the example of human and his mind is the real one.

We have to use the whole story to get the true meaning. If you use statement versus statement, we will get wrong meaning.

I am not here nor there.I am not right nor wrong.I do not exist neither non-exist.I am not I nor non-I.I am not in samsara nor nirvana.To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

Madyamika prasingka is the ultimate view. Use that background to read Mahamudra or Dzoghchen, it will strengthen your understanding deeper without any contradiction.

Thank you for the suggestion, Darwid! The comparison between the two sources cited was very simplistic - I was trying to ask some questions about the view, and a couple of hours in I'd had little success formulating them so they could be easily addressed. So I kind of gave up and went with one part of what I was writing, realizing that a lot of time many good threads start out with a simple question, poorly phrased or not.

I do a lot of writing in my profession, but for whatever reason, it is extremely difficult for me to be clear and succinct in discussing Dharma - probably since I have so little background - which is why I've practically begged for someone to take me under their wing via PM so I can ask questions privately and one on one, perhaps even by phone. I feel that I gain a lot of benefit by reading the threads on this Dzogchen forum, but at some point I need to clarify my questions. Thanks for your patience as I fumble about and try to find my way.

asunthatneversets wrote:That's the difference between thought-based "mind" and "mind" as in the primordial "enlightened nucleus" or whatever label it's given in the heart. There's pretty in depth descriptions of how mind resides in the heart and actually manifests out into(as) the "objective sphere" through the eyes.

Tashi delek,

Thanks for your reply.

In how far, would be that inside - outside experience over the medium "eyes" , be illusion ?Then, in how far could be that experience be valued or be of use ?

Mutsog MarroKY

Its value/use applies mostly to tögal I'm pretty sure

The crystal canal is not about mind ...

Sönam

By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.- Longchen Rabjam -

Whatever term you would say the crystal canal concerns is synonymous with what I'm designating as "mind". I don't usually refer to it as mind either, it only warranted that title in the context of this thread to show the wide array and uses of the term "mind". So any deviation in shared view between you and I is going to be merely semantical.

Whatever term you would say the crystal canal concerns is synonymous with what I'm designating as "mind". I don't usually refer to it as mind either, it only warranted that title in the context of this thread to show the wide array and uses of the term "mind". So any deviation in shared view between you and I is going to be merely semantical.

No -- in this context the mind is physiologically sited in the lungs, and wisdom is sited in the heart. This is one key difference between the common teachings (i.e. mind has no source, no location and no destination when it leaves) and the uncommon teachings (mind has a source, a location and a destination).